 | This article was nominated for deletion on 16 February 2014 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
 | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Contested deletion
editThis page should not be speedy deleted as an unambiguous copyright infringement, because
- I write the article with my own words.
- The part of the text of the article on "Joint Declaration" is completely same in all websites. The bot confuses and mistakenly regard it as copy-paste. But, there is no copy-paste there.
- In the article, "Joint Declaration" part is lengthy, and therefore the bot see it as a copy-paste and copyright violation. The reality is: the articles and text of the "Joint Declaration" is completely the same everywhere:
Cyprus Mail, 11.02.2014: http://cyprus-mail.com/2014/02/11/joint-declaration-final-version-as-agreed-between-the-two-leaders/
Parikiaki, 11.02.2014..: http://www.parikiaki.com/2014/02/cyprus-joint-declaration-full-text/
WordBulletin, 11.02.2014: http://www.worldbulletin.net/world/128702/cyprus-talks-resume-in-friendly-atmosphere
European Voice, 11.02.2014: http://www.europeanvoice.com/article/2014/february/cyprus-reunification-talks-restart/79625.aspx
Predidency of RoC, 11.02.2014: http://www.presidency.gov.cy/Presidency/Presidency.nsf/All/52F9D262093B3137C2257C7C0040EC43?OpenDocument
just a few others.
--Alexyflemming (talk) 08:09, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
The Continuous Deletion of Templates Related With the Article
editLfdder continuously deleted the related templates of the article:
24.02.2014 10.12 https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=2014_Cyprus_Joint_Declaration&oldid=596894054&diff=prev
(Related Edit Summaries:
Alexyflemming: (12.02.2014 (The start-day of page) 11:13. The templates and categories added. The templates are for easy navigation. Please, do not delete them. The same templates are used in CyProb related articles.
Lfdder: I contest their addition)
The existence of the Templates in CyProb related articles: Cyprus dispute, Cypriot intercommunal violence, Cypriot refugees, List of diplomatic missions of_Northern Cyprus, List of diplomatic missions in Northern_Cyprus, Embassy of Turkey to the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, Zürich and London Agreement, Turkish Federated State of Cyprus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexyflemming (talk • contribs) 10:34, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
24.02.2014 09.19 https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=2014_Cyprus_Joint_Declaration&diff=prev&oldid=596891100
(Related Edit Summaries:
Alexyflemming: The templates were already in the article for a long time for easy navigation.
Lfdder: No, they weren't)
23.02.2014 23.11 https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=2014_Cyprus_Joint_Declaration&diff=prev&oldid=596821040
(Related Edit Summaries:
Alexyflemming: The removed categories and templates re-put
Lfdder: No backlinks, links to the gov websites? whatever for? WP:BRD)
23.02.2014 14.21 https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=2014_Cyprus_Joint_Declaration&diff=prev&oldid=596775591
(Related Edit Summaries:
Lfdder: External Links)
12.02.2014 11.13 https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=2014_Cyprus_Joint_Declaration&diff=prev&oldid=595125651
(Related Edit Summaries:
Alexyflemming: Categories added)Alexyflemming (talk) 10:21, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- Discounting the fact that there's no backlinks in all but 1....only the most fervent partitionist would consider this to be a matter of foreign relations. — Lfdder (talk) 10:50, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- So, your objection is in that you regard the addition to be "most fervent partitionist issue". Wikipedia, WP:COMMON places the most commonly names, not most truely names. Just as is so, the addition of the templates are just for the sake of easing of navigation; nothing else! In Wikipedia, these templates are located in numerous article pages: The existence of the Templates in CyProb related articles: Cyprus dispute, Cypriot intercommunal violence, Cypriot refugees, List of diplomatic missions of_Northern Cyprus, List of diplomatic missions in Northern Cyprus, Embassy of Turkey to the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, Zürich and London Agreement, Turkish Federated State of Cyprus by various Wikipedians. Hence, please be respectful to the general view of the society.
- So, your objection is in that you regard the addition to be "most fervent partitionist issue". Wikipedia, WP:COMMON places the most commonly names, not most truely names. Just as is so, the addition of the templates are just for the sake of easing of navigation; nothing else! In Wikipedia, these templates are located in numerous article pages: The existence of the Templates in CyProb related articles: Cyprus dispute, Cypriot intercommunal violence, Cypriot refugees, List of diplomatic missions of_Northern Cyprus, List of diplomatic missions in Northern Cyprus, Embassy of Turkey to the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, Zürich and London Agreement, Turkish Federated State of Cyprus by various Wikipedians. Hence, please be respectful to the general view of the society.
- As for your objection to the "foreign relation" in essence; definitely, this is "foreign" from the perspective of Northern Cyprus. You can create a "Template: Domestic Relations of Cyprus", and add your template here, instead of the template "Foreign Relations of Cyprus". Clear? Alexyflemming (talk) 13:07, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- No, that's not my only objection. WP:COMMON is an essay, and I don't see any mention of 'most commonly names' in it. We're under no obligation to follow some sort of precedence. The Cyprus dispute is very much not foreign to Northern Cyprus -- it is felt by every inhabitant. It's not true even in the strictest sense, since the government of Northern Cyprus does not recognise the RoC. So not clear, I'm afraid, no. — Lfdder (talk) 13:52, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- You say "since the government of Northern Cyprus does not recognise the RoC" and hence the teplate "Foreign Relations of Northern Cyprus" should not be put to the article "2014 Cyprus Joint Declaration". There are 2 main inconsistency in your arguement:
- 1. Cyprus does not recognize Turkey, and Turkey does not recognize Cyprus. On the other hand, both of the Foreign Relations articles of Cyprus and Turkey include each other country. Hence, non-recognition does not prohibit to be behaved as foreign relation.
- 2. The template Template:Foreign_relations_of_Northern_Cyprus already includes 2014 Cyprus Joint Declaration as an item in it. See the "Agreements" part. Hence, you are blocking the Template Template:Foreign_relations_of_Northern_Cyprus from appearance in one of the Template's item! Alexyflemming (talk) 14:29, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- As for 2.: Very cunning! You use the fact that the article is mentioned in the template to support your adding the template to the article, but the article was put into the template by yourself, so in effect, you have support from yourself (and so far from no-one else). --T*U (talk) 14:43, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- Do you have any objection to 2014 Cyprus Joint Declaration being placed in the "Agreements" part of the template Template:Foreign relations of Northern Cyprus?Alexyflemming (talk) 08:44, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
- Obviously I object to that, since I support the deletion/merge of the article itself. If the article should be kept, it may or may not deserve a place in the template. That will depend on the article's content (and the its name) at that time. What I also object to, is your arguing method (above). First you enter the article into the template. Then you point to the template and say that since the article is in the template, then the template should be in the article. That is very close to cheating. --T*U (talk) 12:05, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
- Do you have any objection to 2014 Cyprus Joint Declaration being placed in the "Agreements" part of the template Template:Foreign relations of Northern Cyprus?Alexyflemming (talk) 08:44, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
- As for your first point.... Cyprus recognises Turkey. Cyprus is nowhere to be found in Foreign relations of Turkey. Non-recognition does preclude formal relations btn the two states. I did say 'in the strictest sense'. I think I made it obvious I don't think it's a foreign matter in any other sense. — Lfdder (talk) 15:21, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- a. Northern Cyprus also recognizes 1960-Cyprus ("partnership country") in which Turkish Cypriots also have a say just as Greek Cypriots (What Northern Cyprus do not recognize is the 1963-till-now-Cyprus in which the governments composed by only Greek Cypriots.).
b. You say "I don't think it's a foreign matter in any other sense". Then, Why does this "internal" issue (2014 Cyprus Joint Declaration) need to be signed under the "Auspieces of United Nations"? Do countries all over the world normally and ordinarily call the United Nations to their countries for auspiece of their internal affairs?
c. EU Enlargement Commissioner Verheugen’s press statement of 26 April 2004: "The Green Line has become de facto external border of the EU.". In which of the EU countries, the area within it is mentioned as a "de facto external border"?
d. "What you think" and "what is in reality" are different: Look at the representatives from Cyprus island in Parliamentary Assembly of Council of Europe: The Greek Cypriots are chosen in the Assembly of Cyprus and Turkish Cypriots are chosen in the Assembly of Northern Cyprus.Alexyflemming (talk) 08:44, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
- a. Northern Cyprus also recognizes 1960-Cyprus ("partnership country") in which Turkish Cypriots also have a say just as Greek Cypriots (What Northern Cyprus do not recognize is the 1963-till-now-Cyprus in which the governments composed by only Greek Cypriots.).
- As for 2.: Very cunning! You use the fact that the article is mentioned in the template to support your adding the template to the article, but the article was put into the template by yourself, so in effect, you have support from yourself (and so far from no-one else). --T*U (talk) 14:43, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- You say "since the government of Northern Cyprus does not recognise the RoC" and hence the teplate "Foreign Relations of Northern Cyprus" should not be put to the article "2014 Cyprus Joint Declaration". There are 2 main inconsistency in your arguement:
- No, that's not my only objection. WP:COMMON is an essay, and I don't see any mention of 'most commonly names' in it. We're under no obligation to follow some sort of precedence. The Cyprus dispute is very much not foreign to Northern Cyprus -- it is felt by every inhabitant. It's not true even in the strictest sense, since the government of Northern Cyprus does not recognise the RoC. So not clear, I'm afraid, no. — Lfdder (talk) 13:52, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
"Inappropriate move"
edit- The result of the "delete request" of "2014 Cyprus Joint Declaration" was
slakr (Wiki Administrator): "The result was no consensus. There's no consensus for delete; there seems to be disagreement, however, on whether it should be kept outright or merged to some other article."
- "The Delete Request" resulted as [1]. There is a "disagreement" on whether "kept outright" or "merged".
When there is such a disagreement, The move "2014 Cyprus Joint Declaration-->2014 Cyprus talks" cannot be realized.
The move (2014 Cyprus Joint Declaartion-->2014 Cyprus talks) was made with the pretext that "Moved per arguments presented at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014 Cyprus Joint Declaration."
Arguments in "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014 Cyprus Joint Declaration" were not concluded as "delete/move", but "no consensus for delete" and "disagreement for merge/move".
There are many arguements in "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014 Cyprus Joint Declaration" that are opposite to both "delete" and "move". The delete request was discussed and ended. If there is such a request for move/merge, it should also be discussed separately. The concluding result of the "delete" discussions ("The result was no consensus. There's no consensus for delete; there seems to be disagreement, however, on whether it should be kept outright or merged to some other article") does not give OK to "move/merge". The discussion of "delete" was not resulted in "OKEYing the move/merge"Alexyflemming (talk) 22:24, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
- You seem to confuse "merge" and "move". While the AfD discussion was closed with statement "...there seems to be disagreement, however, on whether it should be kept outright or merged to some other article," that means that for merging a separate discussion is needed through WP:MERGE. It said nothing about changing the title of this article. At the same time, several editors expressed their opinion that if the article would be kept, that means not deleted or merged, it should be renamed "2014 Cyprus talks" to keep the title in line with the content. As this was not disputed, the move seemed uncontroversial. If you oppose this move now, you may start the normal page move procedure as several editors have supported the current title "2014 Cyprus talks". It is definitely not a technical move. Beagel (talk) 09:39, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
- I do not confuse merge and move. I know the meaning of them not only in parlance of English but also in Wikipedia.
- You said "for merging a separate discussion is needed through WP:MERGE" is concluded for the Wiki Admin's concluding remark. Then, Why did you merge it to "2014 Cyprus talks"? "changing the title of this article" is isomorphic to "move", and You cannot change the name of the article "2014 Cyprus Joint Declaraion" to "2014 Cyprus talks". You say "several editors expressed their opinion that....". Wikipedia is "consensus", not the "head count". Wiki Admin (slacr) concluded his remark based on not the "head count" of this "several editors" but "consistency, robustness, reasonability" of the arguements defended.
- I oppose the move. What is normal is not "my starting of normal page move procedure", but "your starting of normal page move procedure".
- It is "technical move" in the light of "Wiki admin's concluding remark". To decide whether "technical move" or not, what should be cared is the "Wiki Admin's View", not "several editors' view" since Wiki Admin already takes into account this "several editors" into account as well.
- You made illegal move in Wikipedia. I am very complaining this illegal move.
Alexyflemming (talk) 19:06, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
- I do not confuse merge and move. I know the meaning of them not only in parlance of English but also in Wikipedia.
- You seem to confuse "merge" and "move". While the AfD discussion was closed with statement "...there seems to be disagreement, however, on whether it should be kept outright or merged to some other article," that means that for merging a separate discussion is needed through WP:MERGE. It said nothing about changing the title of this article. At the same time, several editors expressed their opinion that if the article would be kept, that means not deleted or merged, it should be renamed "2014 Cyprus talks" to keep the title in line with the content. As this was not disputed, the move seemed uncontroversial. If you oppose this move now, you may start the normal page move procedure as several editors have supported the current title "2014 Cyprus talks". It is definitely not a technical move. Beagel (talk) 09:39, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
- Nobody merged anything. Changing the title (move) is not a merge. When I made it, it seemed to be uncontroversial consensus-based move as I explained above. If you think that there is a consensus to restore the old title (which by my understanding does not correspond to the substance of the article) please start the WP:RM. No need for WP:WL and WP:DRAMA. Beagel (talk) 20:28, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
- There was the delete request of "2014 Cyprus Joint Declaration", and it was rejected (as Wiki Admin's: "no consensus"). The move request (changing the title) was not made. If you had wanted to change the title (the move of article) ahead of the delete discussions, then the proper way of this requesting move (WP:RM). You cannot make move with the pretext of "...seemed to be uncontroversial...". What is uncontroversial for you is controversial for me. This controversialness can be obtained from Wiki admin's (slakr) wording of conclusion of the delete discussion. If you want to move the page, do it properly, not "seemed to be uncontroversial"ly. Request "move". Allow Wikipedians enough time (1week for example) to respond you. If any Wiki admins give right to you, then do whatever you do.Alexyflemming (talk) 21:56, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
- Nobody merged anything. Changing the title (move) is not a merge. When I made it, it seemed to be uncontroversial consensus-based move as I explained above. If you think that there is a consensus to restore the old title (which by my understanding does not correspond to the substance of the article) please start the WP:RM. No need for WP:WL and WP:DRAMA. Beagel (talk) 20:28, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Move?
edit- The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: not moved. There is a consensus to keep the article at its current title.
And Alexyflemming ... please do not use the HTML <ins> tag as a form of emphasis. It has a particular role in marking revisions, and its use here is misleading. The resulting underlined green text is appalling to read, which impedes the discussion process. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:58, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
- The result of the "delete request" of "2014 Cyprus Joint Declaration" was; slakr(Wiki Administrator):"The result was no consensus. There's no consensus for delete; there seems to be disagreement, however, on whether it should be kept outright or merged to some other article.".
The Delete Request was resulted as "no consensus". There is a "disagreement" on whether "kept outright" or "merged" as the Wiki admin specified. When there is such a disagreement, The move "2014 Cyprus Joint Declaration-->2014 Cyprus talks" cannot be realized.
The move "(2014 Cyprus Joint Declaration) to (2014 Cyprus talks)" was made with the pretext that "Moved per arguments presented at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014 Cyprus Joint Declaration."
Arguments in "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014 Cyprus Joint Declaration" were not concluded as "delete/move", but "no consensus for delete" and "disagreement for merge/move".
There are many arguments in "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014 Cyprus Joint Declaration" that are opposite to both "delete" and "move". The delete request was discussed and ended. If there is such a request for move/merge, it should also be discussed separately. The concluding result of the "delete" discussions ("The result was no consensus. There's no consensus for delete; there seems to be disagreement, however, on whether it should be kept outright or merged to some other article") does not give OK to "move/merge". The discussion of "delete" was not resulted in "OKEYing the move/merge".
I do not have any Administrator privilege to restore the page via the move "(2014 Cyprus talks)to(2014 Cyprus Joint Declaration)". Could an administrator please realize this move and restore the page "2014 Cyprus Joint Declaration". Thanks. Alexyflemming (talk) 07:49, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
- This is definitely not a technical or uncontroversial move. The issue is discussed at the article's talk page. Beagel (talk) 09:42, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
- I became very upset and bothered about your move. I think it is illegal move. I want to bring the issue to the attention of Wiki admins since the view of the Wiki admin (slakr) was not taken into account in your action by you. Here is the defence for your action:
- This is definitely not a technical or uncontroversial move. The issue is discussed at the article's talk page. Beagel (talk) 09:42, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
- The move ("2014 Cyprus Joint Declaration" to "2014 Cyprus talks") is "completely illegal": The Wiki admin's (slakr) concluding view was not taken into account and completely disregarded:
- You seem to confuse "merge" and "move". While the AfD discussion was closed with statement "...there seems to be disagreement, however, on whether it should be kept outright or merged to some other article," that means that for merging a separate discussion is needed through WP:MERGE. It said nothing about changing the title of this article. At the same time, several editors expressed their opinion that if the article would be kept, that means not deleted or merged, it should be renamed "2014 Cyprus talks" to keep the title in line with the content. As this was not disputed, the move seemed uncontroversial. If you oppose this move now, you may start the normal page move procedure as several editors have supported the current title "2014 Cyprus talks". It is definitely not a technical move. Beagel (talk) 09:39, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
- I do not confuse merge and move. I know the meaning of them not only in parlance of English but also in Wikipedia.
- You said "for merging a separate discussion is needed through WP:MERGE" is concluded for the Wiki Admin's concluding remark. Then, Why did you merge it to "2014 Cyprus talks"? "changing the title of this article" is isomorphic to "move", and You cannot change the name of the article "2014 Cyprus Joint Declaraion" to "2014 Cyprus talks". You say "several editors expressed their opinion that....". Wikipedia is "consensus", not the "head count". Wiki Admin (slacr) concluded his remark based on not the "head count" of this "several editors" but "consistency, robustness, reasonability" of the arguements defended.
- I oppose the move. What is normal is not "my starting of normal page move procedure", but "your starting of normal page move procedure".
- It is "technical move" in the light of "Wiki admin's concluding remark". To decide whether "technical move" or not, what should be cared is the "Wiki Admin's View", not "several editors' view" since Wiki Admin already takes into account this "several editors" into account as well.
- You made illegal move in Wikipedia. I am very complaining this illegal move.
Alexyflemming (talk) 19:06, 8 March 2014 (UTC)- Nobody merged anything. Changing the title (move) is not a merge. When I made it, it seemed to be uncontroversial consensus-based move as I explained above. If you think that there is a consensus to restore the old title (which by my understanding does not correspond to the substance of the article) please start the WP:RM. No need for WP:WL and WP:DRAMA. Beagel (talk) 20:28, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
- There was the delete request of "2014 Cyprus Joint Declaration", and it was rejected (as Wiki Admin's: "no consensus"). The move request (changing the title) was not made. If you had wanted to change the title (the move of article) ahead of the delete discussions, then the proper way of this requesting move (WP:RM). You cannot make move with the pretext of "...seemed to be uncontroversial...". What is uncontroversial for you is controversial for me. This controversialness can be obtained from Wiki admin's (slakr) wording of conclusion of the delete discussion. If you want to move the page, do it properly, not "seemed to be uncontroversial"ly. Request "move". Allow Wikipedians enough time (1week for example) to respond you. If any Wiki admins give right to you, then do whatever you do.Alexyflemming (talk) 21:56, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
- Nobody merged anything. Changing the title (move) is not a merge. When I made it, it seemed to be uncontroversial consensus-based move as I explained above. If you think that there is a consensus to restore the old title (which by my understanding does not correspond to the substance of the article) please start the WP:RM. No need for WP:WL and WP:DRAMA. Beagel (talk) 20:28, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
- I do not confuse merge and move. I know the meaning of them not only in parlance of English but also in Wikipedia.
- You seem to confuse "merge" and "move". While the AfD discussion was closed with statement "...there seems to be disagreement, however, on whether it should be kept outright or merged to some other article," that means that for merging a separate discussion is needed through WP:MERGE. It said nothing about changing the title of this article. At the same time, several editors expressed their opinion that if the article would be kept, that means not deleted or merged, it should be renamed "2014 Cyprus talks" to keep the title in line with the content. As this was not disputed, the move seemed uncontroversial. If you oppose this move now, you may start the normal page move procedure as several editors have supported the current title "2014 Cyprus talks". It is definitely not a technical move. Beagel (talk) 09:39, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
- Alexyflemming (talk) 19:15, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose per previous deletion discussion. If the talks of 2014 ever result in anything significant, it will not be the declaration that will be the pivoting point, but the process following it. At that point it may or may not be convenient to change the title to focus on the result (or delete the article if the result is nil), but until then, the current title is the best we can get. --T*U (talk) 11:15, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
- You (T*U) already stated your above argument/view ("If the talks of 2014 ever result in anything significant") in the Deletion discussions of "2014 Cyprus Joint Declaration". Your view was replied with counter arguments/views. All our views (pros/cons) in the deletion discussion of "2014 Cyprus Joint Declaration" have been taken into account and a conclusion was derived by a Wiki Admin (slakr):
- The result was no consensus. There's no consensus for delete; there seems to be disagreement, however, on whether it should be kept outright or merged to some other article.
- All in all, all of us must respect and obey that conclusion. If one bothers about the conclusion, what that one must do is clear: This time instead of "requesting delete", "Requesting a move" in the Talk Page of 2014 Cyprus Joint Declaration to remove any disagreement. In advance, one cannot know the disagreement will finish with the conclusion of move.
- If people in discussion would not have obeyed the result/conclusion of the discussion, then why had we discussed the things that much!Alexyflemming (talk) 11:44, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
- The "no consensus" closing of the delete motion has nothing to do with the article name. In the deletion discussion, several editors asked for a renaming, representing different views on the deletion: "Delete, but if not deleted, then rename", "Merge, but if not merged, then rename", "Keep, but rename". No stronger objections were raised than "would not be a good idea". It was a completely logical conclusion to rename the article. Your attempt to revert the name change as a procedural question by calling it an "uncontroversial technical move" was of course dismissed, and the current move request was opened by an admin on your behalf. Caould we now discuss the article name instead of flogging a dead horse? --T*U (talk) 07:57, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
- You say, "No stronger objections were raised than "would not be a good idea"". I very oppose. My arguments included the implications of objections about "rename (move)" as well. Hence, the concluding Wiki Admin stated that in his conclusion:
- You say, "No stronger objections were raised than "would not be a good idea"". I very oppose. My arguments included the implications of objections about "rename (move)" as well. Hence, the concluding Wiki Admin stated that in his conclusion:
- There is a "disagreement" on whether "kept outright" or "merged" as the Wiki admin specified.. What do you understand from There is a "disagreement" on whether "kept outright". A procedural Wiki policy error was made. I opposed the renaming (moving) of the article "2014 Cyprus Joint Declaration" with many arguments previously in the deletion discussion of "2014 Cyprus Joint Declaration". Everybody must respect and obey the Wiki Admin's Conclusion. Those unhappy with the conclusion must start renaming (move) request IN THE TALK PAGE OF 2014 CYPRUS JOINT DECLARATION.
Alexyflemming (talk) 08:16, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
- The "no consensus" closing of the delete motion has nothing to do with the article name. In the deletion discussion, several editors asked for a renaming, representing different views on the deletion: "Delete, but if not deleted, then rename", "Merge, but if not merged, then rename", "Keep, but rename". No stronger objections were raised than "would not be a good idea". It was a completely logical conclusion to rename the article. Your attempt to revert the name change as a procedural question by calling it an "uncontroversial technical move" was of course dismissed, and the current move request was opened by an admin on your behalf. Caould we now discuss the article name instead of flogging a dead horse? --T*U (talk) 07:57, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
- You (T*U) already stated your above argument/view ("If the talks of 2014 ever result in anything significant") in the Deletion discussions of "2014 Cyprus Joint Declaration". Your view was replied with counter arguments/views. All our views (pros/cons) in the deletion discussion of "2014 Cyprus Joint Declaration" have been taken into account and a conclusion was derived by a Wiki Admin (slakr):
- Oppose per previous deletion discussion. The background section is not about the joint declaration. First four references in this section (the text before the actual text of the declaration) even do not mention the joint declaration. That means that the article covers wider topic than just the joint declaration and therefore the title '2014 Cyprus Joint Declaration' is incorrect. Beagel (talk) 11:57, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
- You (Beagel) should state your arguments/views ("First four references in this section (the text before the actual text of the declaration) even do not mention the joint declaration" etc.) in The "Request Move" of "2014 Cyprus Joint Declaration". The arguments similar to Yours (Beagel) was mentioned in the "Deletion discussions of "2014 Cyprus Joint Declaration". Those were replied with counter arguments/views. All our views (pros/cons) in the deletion discussion of "2014 Cyprus Joint Declaration" have been taken into account and a conclusion was derived by a Wiki Admin (slakr):
- The result was no consensus. There's no consensus for delete; there seems to be disagreement, however, on whether it should be kept outright or merged to some other article.
- All in all, all of us must respect and obey that conclusion. "Request a move" in the Talk Page of 2014 Cyprus Joint Declaration to remove any disagreement; not in the Talk Page of "2014 Cyprus talks". A very serious "procedural error" was made. In advance, one cannot know the disagreement will finish with the conclusion of move.
- If people in discussion would not have obeyed the result/conclusion of the delete discussion (of "2014 C J D"), then why had we discussed the things that much! How can I enter discussions about "Cyprus issue" without knowing in advance that the Wiki-Admin-conclusions of the discussions about "Cyprus issue" will be respected by everyone?!!Alexyflemming (talk) 12:41, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
- You (Beagel) should state your arguments/views ("First four references in this section (the text before the actual text of the declaration) even do not mention the joint declaration" etc.) in The "Request Move" of "2014 Cyprus Joint Declaration". The arguments similar to Yours (Beagel) was mentioned in the "Deletion discussions of "2014 Cyprus Joint Declaration". Those were replied with counter arguments/views. All our views (pros/cons) in the deletion discussion of "2014 Cyprus Joint Declaration" have been taken into account and a conclusion was derived by a Wiki Admin (slakr):
- Comment could we delete in this section the copy-pasted discusion which is copy-pasted from the section just above it? I find it also quite disruptive practice to add very long and emotional comments after other editors opinions which makes it very hard to read what is said by who. It would be better to keep 'Survey' subsection and 'Discussion' subsection separated. Beagel (talk) 11:57, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
- Nope! I clarified the contents of "You, Yours". I want all to obey the procedures of Wikipedia.Alexyflemming (talk) 12:41, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
- Note that according to Wikipedia:Consensus#No consensus:
| “ | In article title discussions, no consensus has two defaults: If an article title has been stable for a long time, then the long-standing article title is kept. If it has never been stable, or has been unstable for a long time, then it is moved to the title used by the first major contributor after the article ceased to be a stub. | ” |
Therefore, if a page has been moved from a longstanding title, and it is not possible to move the page back to its original title during the discussion, the default title will be the title prior to the contested move.Alexyflemming (talk) 19:01, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
THE REAL ARTICLE ("2014 Cyprus Joint Declaration") WAS DESTROYED
editThe Article in Context "2014 Cyprus Joint Declaration" was started by me at 12 February 2014. Some Wikipedians nominated the article "2014 Cyprus Joint Declaration" to be deleted. They were REJECTED. They created "2014 Cyprus talks" with the same content. And, illegally moved the article "2014 Cyprus Joint Declaration" to "2014 Cyprus talks". I will struggle till nominators of the delete request of "2014 Cyprus Joint Declaration" obey WIKIPEDIA ADMINS' DECISIONS!Alexyflemming (talk) 14:48, 14 March 2014 (UTC)